The present invention relates to a therapeutic coating for an intravascular implant, and in particular to a coating that prevents or treats hyperproliferative vascular disease including intimal smooth muscle cell hyperplasia, restenosis, and vascular occlusion.
As discussed in more detail below, the prior art discloses many examples of therapeutic coatings that have been applied to intravascular devices. The objective behind applying the therapeutic coating is to either mediate or suppress a tissue response at the site of implantation. For example in intravascular situations, one of the obvious outcomes of implanting a foreign body is for an intense reaction at the site of implantation. This intense reaction can result from either the implantation itself or the stresses generated after implantation. Due to the reaction, there is an obvious interaction by the vessel wall to compensate for this injury by producing a host of tissue related responses that is generally called xe2x80x9chealing due to injury.xe2x80x9d It is this healing process that the therapeutic coating attempts to mediate, suppress, or lessen. In some instances, this healing process is excessive in which it occludes the entire lumen providing for no blood flow in the vessel. This reoccluded vessel is also called a resteinotic vessel.
Therapeutic coatings can behave in different ways. For example, depending upon the kind of therapeutic agent used, the various cellular levels of mechanisms are tackled. Some of the therapeutic agents act on the growth factors that are generated at the site of implantation or intervention of the vessel. Some other therapeutic agents act on the tissues and suppress the proliferative response of the tissues. Others act on the collagen matrix that comprises the bulk of the smooth muscle cells. Some examples of prior art relating to therapeutic coatings follow.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,283,257 issued to Gregory et al. provides a method of preventing or treating hyperproliferative vascular disease in a mammal by administering an amount of mycophenolic acid effective to inhibit intimal thickening. This drug can be delivered either after angioplasty or via a vascular stent that is impregnated with mycophenolic acid.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,288,711 issued to Mitchell et al. provides a method of preventing or treating hyperproliferative vascular disease in a mammal by administering an antiproliferative effective amount of a combination of rapamycin and heparin. This combination can be delivered either after angioplasty or via a vascular stent that is impregnated with the combination.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,516,781 and 5,646,160 issued to Morris et al. disclose a method of preventing or treating hyperproliferative vascular disease in a mammal by administering an antiproliferative effective amount of rapamycin alone or in combination with mycophenolic acid. The rapamycin or rapamycin/mycophenolic acid combination can be delivered via a vascular stent.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,519,042 issued to Morris et al. teaches a method of preventing or treating hyperproliferative vascular disease in a mammal consists of administering to a mammal an effective amount of carboxyamide compounds. This can also be delivered intravascularly via a vascular stent.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,646,160 issued to Morris et al. provides a method of preventing or treating hyperproliferative vascular disease in a mammal by administering an antiproliferative effective amount of rapamycin alone or in combination with mycophenolic acid. This can be delivered intravascularly via a vascular stent.
Each of the above-identified patents utilizes an immunosuppressive agent. Since the mid 1980""s, many new small molecular weight molecules of natural product, semi-synthetic or totally synthetic origin have been identified and developed for the control of graft rejection. These include mizoribine, deoxysperguzalin, cyclosporine, FK 506, mycophenolic acid (and its prodrug form as mycophenolate mofetil), rapamycin, and brequinar sodium. The mechanisms of some of these agents will now be briefly summarized.
Both cyclosporine and FK 506 suppress T-cell activation by impeding the transcription of selected cytokine genes in T cells. Neither has any known direct effects on B cells. The suppression of interleukin 2 (IL-2) synthesis is an especially important effect of these two agents, because this cytokine is required for T cells to progress from initial activation to DNA synthesis. Both cyclosporine A and FK 506 bind to cytoplasmic proteins. It has been recently proposed that cyclosporine A and FK 506 are bifunctional: one segment of the immunosuppressant molecule is responsible for binding to the rotamase and, once bound, a separate part of the molecule interacts with a cytoplastmic phosphatase (calcineurin) and causes the phosphatase to become inactive or have altered specificity. Unlike all previously developed immunosuppressants and even the most recent xenobiotic immunosuppressants, FK 506 is the only compound in the history of immunosuppressive drug development that is the product of a drug discovery program designed specifically to identify an improved molecule for the control of allograft rejection. Every other past and xe2x80x9cnewxe2x80x9d immunosuppressive xenobiotic drug is the unanticipated result of drug discovery programs organized to identify lead compounds for anticancer, anti-inflammatory, or antibiotic therapy.
Neither cyclosporine, FK 506, rapamycin nor other immunosuppressants are the product of evolutionary pressures that led to our current use of them as immunosuppressants. The agents are fungal (cyclosporine A) or bacterial (FK 506, rapamycin) metabolites that suppress lymphocyte proliferation purely through coincidental molecular interactions. Therefore, as our ability to design drugs that perform specific intravascular functions increases, there should be a reciprocal decrease in the severity of their adverse effects.
There is a need for safer versions of cyclosporine, FK 506, rapamycin and mycophenolic acid as well as for analogues with higher immunosuppressive efficacy. Because of their toxicities, these agents cannot be used at maximally immunosuppressive doses. Our understanding of the molecular basis of toxic effects of these agents is far less clear than their proposed mechanisms of action on T cells. Until we can combine an understanding of the molecular mechanisms responsible for both the agent""s immunosuppressive actions and its toxic effects, it will be difficult to use rational drug design to limit an agent""s effects solely to suppression of T cell activation.
The other significant issue that complicates the delivery of relatively high dosage of the agents is the relatively narrow therapeutic window. This narrow window of therapeutic vs. toxicity restricts most of these agents to be used as monotherapy for intravascular delivery.
Rapamycin, for example, inhibits the IL-2 induced proliferation of specific IL-2 responsive cell lines, but neither cyclosporine nor other drugs can suppress this response. Because rapamycin acts late in the activation sequence of T cells, it also effectively inhibits T cells inactivated by a recently described calcium independent pathway. Thus, T cells stimulated through this alternative route are insensitive to suppression by cyclosporine A and FK 506, but rapamycin inhibits their proliferation only.
The toxicity profile of rapamycin resembles cyclosporine A and FK 506. Rapamycin is associated with weight loss in several species, and treatment with high does of rapamycin causes diabetes in rats, but not in nonhuman primates. Initial animal data suggests that rapamycin may be less nephrotoxic than cyclosporine A, but its effects on kidneys with impaired function have not been evaluated. Rapamycin at highly effective therapeutic doses is highly toxic and its usage is recommended along with a combination of other immunosuppressants. The combination with cyclosporine A results in a significant increase in the therapeutic level in blood when compared with monotherapy. A lower dosage of the combination is more effective than a higher dosage of monotherapy. The dosage of rapamycin could be reduced nine fold and cyclosporine A could be reduced five fold when these agents are used in combination. In addition, the combination is also not toxic. In fact, the U.S. FDA has approved the usage of rapamycin for transplantation and allograft rejection only upon combination therapy with cyclosporine.
In summary, the problems associated with immunosuppressive agents include, narrow therapeutic window, toxicity window, inefficacy of agents, and dosage related toxicity. In order to overcome these problems, combination therapy involving two agents has been used with success. It has been surprisingly found that the benefits of combined immunosuppression with rapamycin and cyclosporine A have a very synergistic approach towards cellular growth and retardation. Studies have shown that suppression of heart graft rejection in nonhuman primates is especially effective when rapamycin is combined with cyclosporine A. The immunosuppressive efficacy of combined therapy is superior to treatment with either agent alone; this effect is not caused by the elevation of cyclosporine A blood levels by co-administration of rapamycin. The combination treatment with rapamycin and cyclosporine A does not cause nephrotoxicity. The distinct sites of immunosuppressive action of cyclosporine A and rapamycin (cyclosporine A acts on the calcium dependent and rapamycin acts on the calcium independent pathway) and their relatively non-overlapping toxicities will enable this combination to be used intravascularly to prevent cellular growth at the site of injury inside the blood vessel after angioplasty.
Several scientific and technical publications mention the xe2x80x9csurprisinglyxe2x80x9d xe2x80x9csynergisticxe2x80x9d effect of rapamycin and cyclosporine A. These include:
Schuurman et al. in Transplantation Vol 64, 32-35, No. 1, Jul. 15, 1997 describe SDZ-RAD, a new rapamycin derivative that has a synergism with cyclosporine. They conclude that both the drugs show synergism in immunosuppression, both in vitro and in vivo. The drugs are proposed to have a promising combinatorial therapy in allotransplantation.
Schuler et al. in Transplantation Vol 64, 36-42, No. 1, Jul. 15, 1997 report that the drug rapamycin by itself has a very narrow therapeutic window, thus decreasing its clinical efficacy. They reported that in combination with cyclosporine A, the drugs act in a synergistic manner. This synergism, if proven in humans, offers the chance to increase the efficacy of the immunosuppressive regimen by combining the two drugs, with the prospect of mitigating their respective side effects. The authors also propose that they believe that the increased immunosuppressive efficacy of a drug combination composed of cyclosporine A and rapamycin, combined with the ability of rapamycin to prevent VSMC proliferation, bears the potential for improving the prospects for long term graft acceptance.
Morris et al. in Transplantation Proceedings, Vol 23, No. 1 (February), 1991: pp. 521-524 describe the synergistic activity of cyclosporine A and rapamycin for the suppression of alloimmune reactions in vivo.
Schuurman et al. in Transplantation Vol 69, 737-742, No. 5, Mar. 15, 2000 describe the oral efficacy of the macrolide immunosuppressant rapamycin and of cyclosporine microemulsion in cynomalgus monkey kidney allotransplantation. The authors describe the synergistic activity of both these combinations and explain the possible explanation for failure of rapamycin monotherapy to ensure long term survival in this animal model might be the different mode of action of the compound when compared to cyclosporine. Cyclosporine acts very early in the chain of events that lead to a T-cell immune response. It blocks the antigen-driven activation of T cells, inhibiting the production of early lymphokines by interfering with the intracellular signal that emanates from the T-cell receptor upon recognition of antigen. Rapamycin acts rather late after T cell activation. The authors conclude that drugs like rapamycin need to be combined with immunosuppressants like cyclosporine to inhibit the early T-cell activation event and thus prevent an inflammatory response.
Hausen et al. in Transplantation Vol 69, 488-496, No. 4, Feb. 27, 2000 describe the prevention of acute allograft rejection in nonhuman primate a lung transplant recipients. The authors mention that fixed dose studies using monotherapy with either high dose cyclosporine A or a high dose rapamycin did not prevent early acute allograft rejection, but monotherapy with either drug was well tolerated. The fixed doses of the drugs were used in combination, but this led to 5 fold increase in rapamycin levels compared to levels in monkeys treated with rapamycin alone. To compensate for this adverse drug-drug interaction, concentration controlled trials were designed to lower rapamycin levels and cyclosporine A levels considerably when both the drugs were used together. This specimen suppressed rejection successfully.
Martin et al. in the Journal of Immunology in 1995 published a paper xe2x80x9cSynergistic Effect of Rapamycin and cyclosporine A in the Treatment of Experimental Autoimmune Uveoretinitisxe2x80x9d. The authors conclude that immunosuppressive drugs currently available for the treatment of autoimmune diseases display a narrow therapeutic window between efficacy and toxic side effects. The use of combination of drugs that have a synergistic effect may expand this window and reduce the risk of toxicity. The studies demonstrated synergistic relationship between rapamycin and cyclosporine A and the combination allows the use of reduced does of each drug to achieve a therapeutic effect. The use of lower does may also reduce the toxicity of these drugs for the treatment of autoimmune uveitis.
Henderson et al. in immunology 1991, 73: 316-321 compare the effects of rapamycin and cyclosporine A on the IL-2 production. While rapamycin did not have any effect on the IL-2 gene expression, cyclosporine A did have an effect on the IL-2 gene expression. This shows that the two drugs have a completely different pathway of action.
Hausen et al. in Transplantation Vol 67, 956-962, No. 7, Apr. 15, 1999 published the report of co administration of Neural (cyclosporine A) and the novel rapamycin analog (SDZ-RAD), to rat lung allograft recipients. They mention the synergistic effect of the two compoundsxe2x80x94cyclosporine A inhibits early events after T-cell activation, rapamycin affects growth factor driven cell proliferation. Simultaneous administration of cyclosporine A and rapamycin has shown to result in significant increases in rapamycin trough (levels of the drug in blood) when compared with monotherapy. In preclinical and clinical trials, the immunosuppressive strategies have been designed to take advantage of the synergistic immunosuppressive activities of cyclosporine A given in combination with rapamycin. In addition to immunosuppressive synergism, a significant pharmacokinetic interaction after simultaneous, oral administration of cyclosporine A and rapamycin has been found in animal studies.
Whiting et al. in Transplantation Vol 52, 203-208, No. 2, August 1991 describe the toxicity of rapamycin in a comparative and combination study with cyclosporine at immunotherapeutic dosage in the rat.
Yizheng Tu et al. in Transplantation Vol 59, 177-183, No. 2 Jan. 27, 1995 published a paper on the synergistic effects of cyclosporine, Siolimus (rapamycin) and Brequinar on heart allograft survival in mice.
Yakimets et al. in Transplantation Vol 56, 1293-1298, No. 6, December 1993 published the xe2x80x9cProlongation of Canine Pancreatic Islet Allograft Survival with Combined rapamycin and cyclosporine Therapy at Low Dosesxe2x80x9d.
Vathsala et al. in Transplantation Vol 49, 463-472, No. 2, February 1990 published the xe2x80x9cAnalysis of the interactions of Immunosuppressive drugs with cyclosporine in inhibiting DNA proliferationxe2x80x9d.
The combination of rapamycin and cyclosporine A, delivered by a variety of mechanisms, has been patented for the treatment of many diseases. The patent literature is summarized below:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,100,899 issued to Calne provides a method of inhibiting organ or tissue transplant rejection in a mammal. The method includes administering to the mammal a transplant rejection inhibiting amount of rapamycin. Also disclosed is a method of inhibiting organ or tissue transplant rejection in a mammal that includes administering (a) an amount of rapamycin in combination with (b) an amount of one or more other chemotherapeutic agents for inhibiting transplant rejection, e.g., azathiprine, corticosteroids, cyclosporine and FK 506. The amounts of (a) and (b) together are effective to inhibit transplant rejection and to maintain inhibition of transplant rejection.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,212,155 issued to Calne et al. claims a combination of rapamycin and cyclosporine that is effective to inhibit transplant rejection.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,308,847 issued to Calne describes a combination of rapamycin and axathioprine to inhibit transplant rejection.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,403,833 issued to Calne et al. described a combination of rapamycin and a corticosteroid to inhibit transplant rejection.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,461,058 issued to Calne describes a combination of rapamycin and FK 506 to inhibit transplant rejection.
Published U.S. patent application Ser. No. US2001/0008888 describes a synergistic combination of IL-2 transcription inhibitor (e.g., cyclosporine A) and a derivative of rapamycin, which is useful in the treatment and prevention of transplant rejection and also certain autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, together with novel pharmaceutical compositions comprising an IL-2 transcription inhibitor in combination with rapamycin.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,239,124 issued to Zenke et al. also describes a synergistic combination of IL-2 transcription inhibitor and rapamycin which is useful in the treatment and prevention of transplant rejection and also certain autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, together with novel pharmaceutical compositions comprising an IL-2 transcription inhibitor in combination with rapamycin.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,051,596 issued to Badger describes a pharmaceutical composition containing a non-specific suppressor cell inducing compound and cyclosporine A in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. The patent also discloses a method of inducing an immunosuppressive effect in a mammal, which comprises administering an effective dose of the non-specific suppressor cell inducing compound and cyclosporine A to such mammal.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,328 issued to Schonharting et al. describes the preparation and combination of a Xanthine along with cyclosporine A or FK 506.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,286,730 and 5,286,731 issued to Caufield et al. describe the combination of rapamycin and cyclosporine A useful for treating skin diseases, and the delivery of the above compounds orally, parentally, intranasally, intrabronchially, topically, transdermally, or rectally.
Published International Application No. WO 98/18468 describes the synergistic composition comprising rapamycin and Calcitriol.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,624,946 and 5,688,824 issued to Williams et al. describe the use of Leflunomide to control and reverse chronic allograft rejection.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,496,832 issued to Armstrong et al. provides a method of treating cardiac inflammatory disease which comprises administering rapamycin orally, parenterally, intravascularly, intranasally, intrabronchially, transdermally or rectally.
As this prior art illustrates, the use of the combination of rapamycin and cyclosporine A in transplantation is known. The disclosed invention is distinct from the use of the combination in transplantations in that the rejection of an allograft does not does not involve injury to the recipients own vessels; it is a rejection type response. The disclosed invention is related to vascular injury to native blood vessels. The resulting intimal smooth muscle cell proliferation does not involve the immune system, but is growth factor mediated.
Accordingly, a need still exists for an improved therapeutic coating for an intravascular implant.
The present invention relates to an intravascular implant coating. The coating includes a therapeutically effective amount of a first agent, the first agent acting on a calcium independent cellular pathway, and, a therapeutically effective amount of a second agent, the second agent acting on a calcium dependent cellular pathway. The combined amount of the first and second agents treats or prevents hyperproliferative vascular disease.
In one embodiment, the first agent is a macrolide immunosuppressant, such as rapamycin, and the second agent is an IL-2 transcription inhibitor, such as cyclosporine A. The coating can contain a higher amount of rapamycin compared to cyclosporine A. The coating can be used on any type of implant. These include balloon catheters, stents, stent grafts, drug delivery catheters, atherectomy devices, filters, scaffolding devices, anastomotic clips, anastomotic bridges, and suture materials.
The coating can also include a polymer matrix, with the polymer being a resorbable polymer selected from the group consisting of poly-xcex1 hydroxy acids, polyglycols, polytyrosine carbonates, starch, gelatins, cellulose, and blends and co-polymers thereof. Examples of suitable poly-xcex1 hydroxy acids include polylactides, polyglycol acids, and blends and co-polymers thereof.
The coating can either be applied directly to the implant or on top of a primer layer upon which the coating is applied. The primer layer can be made of a resorbable polymer or a biostable polymer. If desired, a top coat can be applied over the coating. In one embodiment, the top coat is made of a resorbable polymer.